Pubdate: Fri, 29 Mar 2013
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2013 Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspaper
Contact:  http://www.chron.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/198
Author: Nathan Jones
Note: Jones is the Baker Institute's Alfred C. Glassell Postdoctoral 
Fellow in Drug Policy.
Page: B6

TEXAS SHOULD NOT MANDATE DRUG TESTS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Proposed Legislation Would Cause a Litany of Problems for State

Gov. Rick Perry has expressed support for a bill now before the 
Legislature that would require drug testing for the receipt of 
unemployment benefits.

Those who favor the proposal argue that it will reduce drug use, save 
money and prevent state benefits from going to those who would waste 
them. These are laudable goals.

Unfortunately, this proposal is unlikely to achieve them. The reasons 
to oppose are numerous. Let me explain.

The bill will likely cost more than it will save. Florida adopted a 
similar law in 2011 and has spent more on reimbursing people for 
testing than it has saved from denied benefits.

Defenders argue that this does not take into account people who do 
not apply because they know they will fail. We should be skeptical of 
numbers that cannot be measured.

Contrary to the opinion of some, most people want to work. They make 
more money and have greater dignity as jobholders.

Eighty percent of the jobs they will apply for will require drug 
tests anyway, making the state-required tests redundant.

Texas' political culture prides itself on respect for individual 
rights. This bill is an example of Big Brother government at its most invasive.

For those who do fail, the tests will disproportionately catch 
marijuana users who can test positive up to a month after use. Harder 
drugs such as heroin or cocaine leave the system within a few days.

The tests also ignore alcohol, which is far more dangerous than 
marijuana in terms of its impact on driving safety or violent behavior.

Denying unemployment benefits to drug users also will harm their 
innocent children.

Few drug users spend every dime on drugs. Some money goes to food and 
other necessities for themselves and their families. Punishing the 
innocent in an attempt to punish the guilty is unfairly punitive.

Application of the law could have a racially disparate impact. The 
bill calls upon the Texas Workforce Commission to create a 
questionnaire. "Suspicious" answers will lead to a drug test.

One can only hope the form does not include a race 
self-identification question. The room for abuse and potential 
profiling would be great.

Drug test false positives happen. I know because it happened to me.

I attended University of California, Berkeley and planned to return 
home to work at the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk for the summer in 2001.

A drug test was required for the job I sought. According to the 
company, the drug test drew an "inconclusive result," which was 
tantamount to failure.

Few things are more frightening than being falsely accused of 
something. You wrack your brain: Could I have been in contact with 
second-hand marijuana smoke? I called the medical review officer, who 
asked me if I ate bagels or muffins with poppy seeds. When I said I 
had, he gave me a negative on the test, which meant I passed and had 
documentation to prove it.

This is not just an anecdote. A review of the literature on drug 
testing, presented by Dr. Dwight Smith at the 2010 American 
Psychiatric Association convention, revealed that "one in 20 are 
going to have inaccurate results, and those are more likely to be 
false positive than false negative." Take those odds across millions 
of annual drug tests and you get a sense of the problem.

In an era when so many have lost jobs through no fault of their own, 
we should have some compassion.

We should not add insult to injury by making jobless Texans urinate 
in a cup to get the unemployment benefits needed to serve as a bridge 
to their next job.

It is not only costly; it's just mean.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom